5 ms·

Negative. Those with money will fight like hell to keep from giving it up. However if by some chance/miracle a guaranteed income is ever instituted, it will be

Negative. Those with money will fight like hell to keep from giving it up. However if by some chance/miracle a guaranteed income is ever instituted, it will become a political football, as politicians and advocacy groups seek to continuously push it higher and higher. Instead of a money handout, I would rather support money in exchange for public works and service. I don't believe handouts without some kind of exchange will ever really work.

maxerickson 11y ago
It's not just those with money that will fight it like hell, a lot of people without much money see working for access to resources as a fairness issue.
tonyedgecombe 11y ago
Politically I don't see it being any different to progressive taxes which many (most?) countries already implement. Practically I suspect it will need to be quite low to avoid all sorts of distortions.
- Overtonwindow 11y ago
  By politically I'm imagining a politician campaigning on the promise to increase the basic minimum income. Vote for me and I'll get your basic income increased. Don't vote for my opponent because they just want to cut your basic income! It's the tax issue all over again.
  - twoodfin 11y ago
    Exactly, and just as likely to be gummed up by complexity. After all, how can you be against teachers and firefighters receiving just a little more BI for their essential, thankless jobs?
    - pgeorgi 11y ago
      but such considerations are what their actual income is for.
  - Retric 11y ago
    You forget the US is run by the rich, which is why this does not happen with Social Security. It's all about not having the benefit cut instead of increasing benefits or lowering retirement age.
- BurningFrog 11y ago
  I haven't listened to the episode, but the Basic Income that makes sense is one that replaces all/most welfare programs. The existing programs are very distorting already, often giving poor people 100%+ marginal taxes. Sure, Basic Income would be distorting, but far less than that. It should also save a lot of money since it requires almost no people to administer. This is also the biggest problem with instituting it, since the people holding those jobs will fight to the death to keep them.
  - dageshi 11y ago
    I don't believe it will replace all/most welfare programs. I think it will replace some and then politicians will be elected to top it up for select groups. "Fairness" will come into play, "I am disadvantaged compared to this other person, I should get more, it's only Fair". Plus regional top ups, cost of living in different places is higher than others, I expect there will be a demand for a top up based on cost of living on top of basic BI, again that'll need to be enforced and administered.
- lawlessone 11y ago
  it doesn't even exist yet and he's trying to distort it.
mc32 11y ago
I agree on the points of exchange for public good. Even poor people are loath to see others getting by on "freebies". But a progressive system where BI depends on need (age, for example) and commensurate effort (volunteering, helping take care of elderly, studying, training, etc.) I think is doable and will need to be worked out as more jobs get automated and people are left out of the economy either due to mismatch of skills or other handicap.
- strommen 11y ago
  A large part of the Basic Income's appeal is that its simplicity would dramatically reduce government overhead. Existing entitlement programs are complicated as hell, and it takes a lot of work to enforce and refine eligibility rules.
- WorldMaker 11y ago
  The systems we have today are the compromise results of such a "progressive system" where system income depends on need (age [Social Security, Medicare], circumstance [Unemployment, Social Security Disability, SNAP, Welfare], etc) and based on "commensurate effort" (previous wages, complicated forms, layers and layers of proofs, ...). Have you had to file for Unemployment "Insurance" yet, in your lifetime? It's a complicated circus to get back money that you "paid in". You have to prove, and then re-prove, your past earnings and tax amounts that had paid into the programs (plural if working across state boundaries); you have to "be actively seeking work" and prove, every single week, that fact with somewhat embarrassing forms to fill out to get the money that you already set aside for this already embarrassing situation... These systems treat you as "guilty-by-default" and we've let the worry of possible fraud, however unlikely, turn these systems into giant theaters of "fraud reduction" and complicated terror on the individuals dealing with the system. Basic Income, by expecting to be unqualified and guaranteed to all regardless of need or effort, is intentionally about simplicity and about avoiding the giant red tape spaghetti that is our current "entitlement" systems. If everyone gets it, equally, then you don't need to worry about "fraud" and you don't need to worry about "proof".
  - mc32 11y ago
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>stituted, it will become a political football, as politicians and advocacy groups seek to continuously push it higher and higher. This is pretty much Chicago in a nutshell. You have all these handouts to public sector unions in return for union votes and union support. You have further entitlements given to the poor on the south and west sides for votes. You have all these ugly deals done in exchange for staying in power, and no one cares about actually balancing the books. When push comes to shove, you just raise taxes over and over. In other words it won't just go "higher and higher" it'll just be higher for special interest groups who can deliver votes. If you can't deliver mass votes and aren't part of one of these groups, your income will be low or non-existant as you'll be stuck in the 'worker' group and not in the 'leisure' group. GMI needs an implementation that works. I suspect there really is none that doesn't quickly just become corrupt patronage. GMI and democracy/elections may not be compatible. It may only work under a totalitarian system and sounds pretty close to the USSR's system at that point. The best case scenario here seems to be automation making the cost of living so low that existing welfare systems will just be more than enough to take care of people. If we can vastly lower the cost of everything, then modest payouts will be enough and we'll be able to retain a capitalist and democratic system.
mrfusion 11y ago
Social security is basic income for those over 65. It is a football like you say but no one has dramatically increased it for decades. Besides the looming shortfall it seems to be run fairly responsibly.
- mc32 11y ago
  SS is different in that presumably you have previously contributed to the funds which get disbursed at retirement. Recipients of BI may never have contributed monetarily to the burse.
- prodmerc 11y ago
  Because those are money paid for (saved up) by the same people while they were young and employed... Where would this basic income for everyone magically come from? It maybe would be possible if the rich (millionaires and especially billionaires) and corporations would pay for it with higher taxes, but since they run the world, I'm guessing that's not gonna happen. Seriously, the current welfare systems are quite ok (pay only those who don't have enough and/or don't have a job), just streamline it and tax the rich a bit more for more money to go into it. Europe seems to do it best so far. But of course that's socialism, etc. (and somehow basic income isn't)...
maxxxxx 11y ago
I also don't believe it can't work long term unless attitudes change dramatically. People who work for a low income will complain that there are people who get almost the same without doing any work. The same wealthy people who lobby for more tax cuts will also not want to pay for people who don't do anything. There will be a lot of people who will use the freedom granted by basic income for productive means but there will also be a lot of people who won't do anything productive and just live off their basic income. That will give opponents a lot of material for campaigning against basic income. So my prediction is that this won't work long term. That is, unless our society changes in radical ways.
- pluteoid 11y ago
  The people working for only slightly more than the UBI will get more than twice the income of someone not working at all. Universal basic income means everyone gets the income.
  - maxxxxx 11y ago
    I doubt that. Low end salaries will probably go down unless there is a minimum wage.
- kspaans 11y ago
  > but there will also be a lot of people who won't do anything productive and just live off their basic income. Won't do anything productive like spend money on food, housing, and entertainment? They will just sit inside and stare at the walls all day.
  - maxxxxx 11y ago
    Not stare at walls but watch TV all day.
    - kspaans 11y ago
      Sounds like great news for distributors, and content creators.

maxerickson 11y ago

It's not just those with money that will fight it like hell, a lot of people without much money see working for access to resources as a fairness issue.

tonyedgecombe 11y ago

Politically I don't see it being any different to progressive taxes which many (most?) countries already implement. Practically I suspect it will need to be quite low to avoid all sorts of distortions.

Overtonwindow 11y ago
By politically I'm imagining a politician campaigning on the promise to increase the basic minimum income. Vote for me and I'll get your basic income increased. Don't vote for my opponent because they just want to cut your basic income! It's the tax issue all over again.
- twoodfin 11y ago
  Exactly, and just as likely to be gummed up by complexity. After all, how can you be against teachers and firefighters receiving just a little more BI for their essential, thankless jobs?
  - pgeorgi 11y ago
    but such considerations are what their actual income is for.
- Retric 11y ago
  You forget the US is run by the rich, which is why this does not happen with Social Security. It's all about not having the benefit cut instead of increasing benefits or lowering retirement age.
BurningFrog 11y ago
I haven't listened to the episode, but the Basic Income that makes sense is one that replaces all/most welfare programs. The existing programs are very distorting already, often giving poor people 100%+ marginal taxes. Sure, Basic Income would be distorting, but far less than that. It should also save a lot of money since it requires almost no people to administer. This is also the biggest problem with instituting it, since the people holding those jobs will fight to the death to keep them.
- dageshi 11y ago
  I don't believe it will replace all/most welfare programs. I think it will replace some and then politicians will be elected to top it up for select groups. "Fairness" will come into play, "I am disadvantaged compared to this other person, I should get more, it's only Fair". Plus regional top ups, cost of living in different places is higher than others, I expect there will be a demand for a top up based on cost of living on top of basic BI, again that'll need to be enforced and administered.
lawlessone 11y ago
it doesn't even exist yet and he's trying to distort it.

mc32 11y ago

I agree on the points of exchange for public good. Even poor people are loath to see others getting by on "freebies". But a progressive system where BI depends on need (age, for example) and commensurate effort (volunteering, helping take care of elderly, studying, training, etc.) I think is doable and will need to be worked out as more jobs get automated and people are left out of the economy either due to mismatch of skills or other handicap.

strommen 11y ago
A large part of the Basic Income's appeal is that its simplicity would dramatically reduce government overhead. Existing entitlement programs are complicated as hell, and it takes a lot of work to enforce and refine eligibility rules.
WorldMaker 11y ago
The systems we have today are the compromise results of such a "progressive system" where system income depends on need (age [Social Security, Medicare], circumstance [Unemployment, Social Security Disability, SNAP, Welfare], etc) and based on "commensurate effort" (previous wages, complicated forms, layers and layers of proofs, ...). Have you had to file for Unemployment "Insurance" yet, in your lifetime? It's a complicated circus to get back money that you "paid in". You have to prove, and then re-prove, your past earnings and tax amounts that had paid into the programs (plural if working across state boundaries); you have to "be actively seeking work" and prove, every single week, that fact with somewhat embarrassing forms to fill out to get the money that you already set aside for this already embarrassing situation... These systems treat you as "guilty-by-default" and we've let the worry of possible fraud, however unlikely, turn these systems into giant theaters of "fraud reduction" and complicated terror on the individuals dealing with the system. Basic Income, by expecting to be unqualified and guaranteed to all regardless of need or effort, is intentionally about simplicity and about avoiding the giant red tape spaghetti that is our current "entitlement" systems. If everyone gets it, equally, then you don't need to worry about "fraud" and you don't need to worry about "proof".
- mc32 11y ago

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

>stituted, it will become a political football, as politicians and advocacy groups seek to continuously push it higher and higher. This is pretty much Chicago in a nutshell. You have all these handouts to public sector unions in return for union votes and union support. You have further entitlements given to the poor on the south and west sides for votes. You have all these ugly deals done in exchange for staying in power, and no one cares about actually balancing the books. When push comes to shove, you just raise taxes over and over. In other words it won't just go "higher and higher" it'll just be higher for special interest groups who can deliver votes. If you can't deliver mass votes and aren't part of one of these groups, your income will be low or non-existant as you'll be stuck in the 'worker' group and not in the 'leisure' group. GMI needs an implementation that works. I suspect there really is none that doesn't quickly just become corrupt patronage. GMI and democracy/elections may not be compatible. It may only work under a totalitarian system and sounds pretty close to the USSR's system at that point. The best case scenario here seems to be automation making the cost of living so low that existing welfare systems will just be more than enough to take care of people. If we can vastly lower the cost of everything, then modest payouts will be enough and we'll be able to retain a capitalist and democratic system.

mrfusion 11y ago

Social security is basic income for those over 65. It is a football like you say but no one has dramatically increased it for decades. Besides the looming shortfall it seems to be run fairly responsibly.

mc32 11y ago
SS is different in that presumably you have previously contributed to the funds which get disbursed at retirement. Recipients of BI may never have contributed monetarily to the burse.
prodmerc 11y ago
Because those are money paid for (saved up) by the same people while they were young and employed... Where would this basic income for everyone magically come from? It maybe would be possible if the rich (millionaires and especially billionaires) and corporations would pay for it with higher taxes, but since they run the world, I'm guessing that's not gonna happen. Seriously, the current welfare systems are quite ok (pay only those who don't have enough and/or don't have a job), just streamline it and tax the rich a bit more for more money to go into it. Europe seems to do it best so far. But of course that's socialism, etc. (and somehow basic income isn't)...

maxxxxx 11y ago

I also don't believe it can't work long term unless attitudes change dramatically. People who work for a low income will complain that there are people who get almost the same without doing any work. The same wealthy people who lobby for more tax cuts will also not want to pay for people who don't do anything. There will be a lot of people who will use the freedom granted by basic income for productive means but there will also be a lot of people who won't do anything productive and just live off their basic income. That will give opponents a lot of material for campaigning against basic income. So my prediction is that this won't work long term. That is, unless our society changes in radical ways.

pluteoid 11y ago
The people working for only slightly more than the UBI will get more than twice the income of someone not working at all. Universal basic income means everyone gets the income.
- maxxxxx 11y ago
  I doubt that. Low end salaries will probably go down unless there is a minimum wage.
kspaans 11y ago
> but there will also be a lot of people who won't do anything productive and just live off their basic income. Won't do anything productive like spend money on food, housing, and entertainment? They will just sit inside and stare at the walls all day.
- maxxxxx 11y ago
  Not stare at walls but watch TV all day.
  - kspaans 11y ago
    Sounds like great news for distributors, and content creators.